Is public art necessarily political, by virtue of its siting in public space? Certainly, conventional theory implies that both public art and public space are replete with ideological potential which in turn promotes political interpretation. Yet, the writings of contemporary philosophers Rancière and Badiou lead to a rejection of this view. Their theories propose that it is impossible to assume that just because an aesthetic object is located in a public space, is viewed by the general populace, or encourages interaction, that it is innately political. Similarly, just because an artist or designer claims that their work is politlcal, this does not make the aesthetic object they produce either innately political, or political in its affects. In a post-political world, where managerial governance has supplanted ideological politics as the dominant model of the state, public art must be understood differently if it is to remain relevant. This essay describes the origins of Rancière's and Badiou's metapolitical theories, their underlying concepts and how they assist in offering an alternative reading of public art and public space.

Relation

Back to the City: Strategies for Informal Urban Interventions: Collaboration Between Artists and Architects p. 94-101